Skip to main content
5:00 pm
if we look at the pattern of support among groups like hispanics and pattern of support of the white working-class would be the best group for ronny to make progress and mccain carried by 17 points in 2008. look at a breakout from the poles provided and we are not seeing any progress among these voters. we are not seeing a noticeably bigger margin among white working-class voters for the gop candidate. is not happening and that is being translated as a similar margin placed like the i 4 corridor in the center of the state where tampa and orlando are and the miami metro area. ..
5:01 pm
we see college graduate group that obama lost by about 11 points in 2008. facing the most polls he's physically about even. i think that makes it very difficult for romney to put together a coalition that can take the state. colorado has been fairly close so again obama mabey looks like a fairy or four-point lead on average read a lot of demographic change. you can see the minority eligible voters have gone up by three percentage points and working-class voters in 2008 have gone down by three percentage points. again it doesn't appear that
5:02 pm
romney is able to turn the demographics tie in his favor. he's not doing much better among the white working-class voters according to the polls i've seen. he's made some progress on the outside margin that obama got 14 points in 2008 among the college graduate voters but he's not making nearly enough voters to take the state and if you break it down geographically the denver metro area is about half the vote in the state but that looks very similar in the polling data as it did in 2008. finally, the poster child for demographic change in the united states and how it's been shifted pretty rapidly over time as the great state of nevada. obama is running ahead of though not nearly as far as he did in 2008. but it still will cut off on my monitor but you can see an incredible increase of nine percentage points for the share of eligible voters who are minorities according to the data
5:03 pm
between 2008 and 2012. that's a massive demographic tide against the republicans and you can see there's been a decline of five percentage points in the share of voters that are colleges john became group into bills and eight. that is a very quick run through some of the swing states in the 2008 election. maybe it's time for me to step back, catch my breath and just say why is this. why is this going on? why does obama have the lead he does? why is from the having difficulty, and what many people argue should be the core limping along economy and a president that has done so much as the defense and its face it popular at the beginning like the health care reform act and so long, the stimulus looked upon unfavorably by a lot of voters because even
5:04 pm
though many have felt the economy come back from cataclysmic tester it didn't exactly turn into a picture of health and voters tend to be unforgiving on things like that. what's going on? the first factor is the economy. it's not great now, but it's better than it used to be and i think we are beginning to get the sense that voters are getting credit for how much things have improved relative to a disastrous economic situation in the first year. voters can remember a few years back there some political scientist who maintained they can't remember what they had for breakfast and basically they just voted what's happening. i think we see in fact there is an influence of where it went before and how people see the current incumbent in that light so as we are seeing the economy pick up a bit with consumer confidence gain strength that this is helping obama take the
5:05 pm
edge of the economic strategy to say obama is the president come is a bad economy, vote for me it doesn't seem to be totally doing the trick. then the obama strategy has been ineffective. i think that it's understood shifting demographics mean for the country and the political coalition and he understood the need to mobilize and he's emphasizing a lot of the issues of immigration and women's issues and things like medicare, cuts to education and tax cuts to the rich, he's been very forceful about contrasting his views on things with what he says are the views to the other side which are sort of embracing a host of unpopular positions to these constituencies he's mobilizing the debates and had success with it and police tried
5:06 pm
to paint romney as an out of touch equity guide working-class person of the team that it's been fairly successful strategy particularly but only with the base but white working-class voters to be competitive in this election the obama team realized correctly there is a very off-putting thing about romney which is embodied in the republican party these days, but romney doesn't particularly without saying a word of the republican performance. it has been designed to optimize the things they might say that what really ticked off the base for the democratic party and raise concerns among independent voters. they probably couldn't have done much better captured by the
5:07 pm
elements that are far away by the level of conservatism and social issues, paul business of corrupting paul ryan and then embracing the ayn rand approach to economics which is just really far away from the political center, the whole percent thing that cannot romney which should be read this to some extent of being delightfully honest for today's gop is coming from in terms of their attitude towards economic and feel policy. it shouldn't have been an election that is a need for them either they haven't maximized that opportunity that is my take on what's going on and i hope you're going to check out the report and look typical maps and
5:08 pm
charts. there will be a short quiz later we want to bring up this great panel to discuss all these issues in a much more excruciating details. why don't you all come up here and get started. you want to be here -- that's fine. and i will be here. >> let me introduce the panel. senior vice president of greenburg research, one of my favorite favorite pollsters not only does she go out there and take the pulse of the nation but she also has an interest to say about it and digs beneath the surface of the data. to my right is my very favorite right-wing who does an excellent
5:09 pm
blog for a national view called the agenda. if you are going to read one single thing from the conservative side of the aisle, i would recommend the blog. if i ever became a conservative it might be because i keep on reading and somehow he gets to me. but anyway, great stuff. ron brownstein is the director of atlantic media and longtime columnist and writer and analyst about really all the things i was talking about in terms of the voter demographics. as they say if you're going to read one thing about the 2012 election, ron would be the guy did it and finally, frank sharry who does all kind of work on immigration reform in the long term student. i'm delighted you can all be here to discuss this with me. let's start with you, ron. you had a new poll but cannot, the heartland monitor which sheds light on this. >> let me try to take what you said and put it in a slightly broader terrain and then in bonn
5:10 pm
that. the last 40 years of presidential politics on apprehensible. if you think about 1968 to 1980 is the one the white house line out of ten times and convincingly the people remember in the 80's talk about a republican lock on the electoral college and having conversations like that with lee atwater. if you look from 2012, the democrats have won the popular road and five of the six elections, the same record as republicans from 68 to 88 and i think if you look at this in the same era only two things have changed when the republicans dominated the second period. the had the chance to win five out of six. the next is the changing composition which is described in 1984 when reagan won 65% of the total vote. 27% were college-educated whites and 12% were minorities. the minority voters essentially doubled to 26% and the college
5:11 pm
share has ticked up to 25% and then on college all the way down to 39% and you are projecting that the walls which even further. in fact if you take riggins off's share of the vote in 84 among the college life minorities and project for 2008 they will go from 69 to 62 by itself. that's the one thing. it's like the plus conversion, the first decade after world war ii is better among them on college and college whites. every nominee from carter ran better among them on college whites and then that began to change in the 70's and 60's with republicans making the gain a downscale and the democratic cannot scale to the point where under clinton the lines converged and ran and won the college nights and on college 36, obama, seven and today in the polling is nine or ten. i would argue that obama wins
5:12 pm
the class conversion is going to have to get brighter. what this has done is produce an environment in which for all the numbers we are talking about, the obama formula victory can be produced at just to members of mabey effort on the side to the and to what 80% of the nonwhite voters in zero age, not just that in 2012 and they represent at least 26% they did last time in the 40% of whites. and in fact as we were saying, the internal composition of the white vote is changing in a way that makes it more accessible for him to get their. for me you have to look not only get education but gender and basically creates the four quadrants. if you look at 08, the college white men, non-mccaul which white men and women, obama was 42 or below. he will drop in all three of those. the numbers are consistently running a little lower than they
5:13 pm
did. the college-educated white women won a majority of them last time and in all of the polling including ours, the "washington post" she is holding that majority. so basically the map it gives you is that if obama can hold 80% among the minorities, which he holds a 70% a little one friday, if he can hold his 52% among the quote white women in the poll one friday, romney has to win two-thirds of all other whites to get in national a dirty. you can do that. republicans are in that ballpark in 2010. we get the sense of what he's talking about among the other quadrants it's what ronald reagan won in '84 during the most decisive landslide in the modern times. so, that is i will end with two quick points one for each party. there's the message for democrats here as well the
5:14 pm
general trend is a loving them to win a majority with a smaller number of whites, they are also winning the smaller majority of the whites, and the reality is reviewing the last four times they've identified the control of the government 65, 66 from 76 to 80, 93, 94 and the first two years of obama each time they suffered a fairly catastrophic decline in the vote share which says they've not been able to articulate the need broad support in the community especially the working class community the the other part, the republicans will certainly be a big point of the debate. it's entirely possible that romney will run as any republican challenger ever. pulling on the whites bush '88 come all 56 to 61% of whites range. romani could come right in that range and lose, and i think that
5:15 pm
is down to -- it should precipitate a conversation in the party. this is the last time anyone will try to do this that is entirely on the back. it's unrealistic when 62 or 63, but the existing collision is so dependent on the community that are uneasy with the change that they are just paralyzed in the intellectual understanding the have to reach out to the hispanics and difficulty they are fighting it in degrees note here at the end. the republican platform in addition to everything else it says about immigration, so any straight defeat does state that provides should be barred from all federal higher education money which means under the republican platform every kid in texas couldn't get a pell grant. so, that is sort of what they are grappling with, versus if
5:16 pm
you talk to karl rove awarded gillespie and the understanding that we have ways to reach out and we should do it but they have a leash and i think after this campaign is going to be if obama wins the ideological vulnerabilities it's hard to imagine that conversation to reduce the mcwhorter you seeing in your polling is it consistent with what he is saying about some of these genders? >> it's all consistent. the we the media has been talking about the women's vote drives me crazy because it's called the win vote and the educational differences the first illustration. it is they are underperforming for the democrats since 2009
5:17 pm
even if you look at health care reform and a variety of other democratic policies this is a group that would be well supported and especially among older women and a blue-collar women and in the 2010 election we are seeing now it's been taking a very long time to kind of bring women back to where they were and obama is still under performing. he won 54% of the women and right now he is winning with about nine fourths. so he has to get more like 51, 52 to actually win the reelection without winning the majority of the women. so what's interesting about how the women's issues are pouring out in this election is that it does solidify the women's attachment to the democratic party there is no group that gets more and parenthood or redefining their race or when renting assets to birth control and college-educated women and
5:18 pm
pushes it even further and further away from their public and party. i don't see in the next couple of cycles of the republican party becoming more liberal on this issue on immigration and lgbt issues but i think that abortion is an important less mystical litmus test and i don't see that changing any time soon this different with blue-collar women. >> speaking of alienating constituencies because the social tissues tallith a bit about how you see the hispanic vote going this time and if in fact hispanic voters are winning and what is really an amazing that and will they show up? >> what will be the margin and what will be the turnout. the challenge for obama is the turnout. there's been a lot of disappointment in the latino community but the economy and immigration but his enthusiasm is surging in the polling among
5:19 pm
latino voters and the margin is quite high. it's important to remember george w. bush and karl rove have a brilliant strategy of outreach to the hispanic voters and a less successful. george bush won at least 40% of the vote. it's more like 40. stila does a remarkable accomplishment, and now he's pulling at best in the mid-20s with the hispanic vote and his own campaign said the need to reach 38% nationally to be competitive in the state where the latino vote will be critical, so the republican party lurched to the right in recent years instead of george w. bush, karl rove, john mccain. let's reach out to the hispanics and make reform something. it's become a party that mitt romney says there is a model he's promised a veto. the gerry before the radical policy prescription called
5:20 pm
deportation, the idea of making life so miserable here that immigrants are literally purged from the country so it's hurt badly but hispanics. the strategy, that strategy means as you point out in your excellent paper, really the southwest is out of reach in large part because of this. they've pulled off the mexico. they have a shot in colorado and nevada but if the turnout is high not much. so thankfully the hispanic strategy that the romney strategy has been let's talk about the economy. the cuban americans and puerto ricans and in hopes we can peel off just enough of them because maybe that will be the trick. the problem is in florida of the hispanic electorate has changed quite significantly. the fastest-growing group are dimond puerto rican latin american immigrants for whom immigration is a defining issue in a litmus test issue. roughly a third now. so i suspect he's going to have
5:21 pm
a hard time winning florida in part because of the changing demographics of the latino electorate in that state. >> what you think about all of this? to years ago they brought on the brand new party and the new type of republican party that maybe wouldn't make what of what appear to be some of these mistakes the romney campaign is making. what do you make of all of this? do you think that is correct? >> christa will stipulate what has been said with immigration for example there is a fascinating moment during a republican presidential campaign that happened last year during which you have mitt romney, new gingrich and rick santorum agree enthusiastically we need immigration reform to attract more high skilled immigrants and they kept asking what about the border? literally they were having a little conversation about the bill, and then it was completely ignored because that doesn't sound like a border of sense to me. then mitt romney gave a speech about immigration reform that
5:22 pm
was oriented of facilitating the family unification and also for skilled visas etc. this is a marginal issue yet interestingly in the most recent years that we have data, you have more immigration, more skilled immigration than less skilled and also more presentation from asia than latin america. that doesn't mean any kind of change and it doesn't mean that mitt romney isn't doing well with the voters, yet it is also true that the immigration the date is framed in some ways and framed and others, it's important to keep in mind particularly as the composition of the population changes. i guess i see these questions are differently in that i see the emergence strategies versus the deliberate strategies so when you are talking about a brand new party would be arguing is that you have this base in which you have long college-educated white voters, and also these are folks that are facing, they are being buffeted by all kind of economic
5:23 pm
structural change was in a society of the flow from that, and so the idea came from well, in 2004 you won a lot of the voters and a lawyer and then suddenly you are not a social security reform measures that created a lot of anxiety and that is something they capitalize extremely effective in 2005. so, on the ever had, you look at the affordable care act and the debate around the health reform and then you see what happens. you have this republican party where they recognize a lot of the voters are older, a lot of them are non-college-educated and having his ayittey so there's an emerging strategy in which you have the sort of policy thinkers saying they are creating a new entitlement and they are calling on the old entitlement cutting the old and thailand. the message for the activists just wound up being they are cutting the entitlement, and that actually proved again it is the difference between the emerging strategy and a deliberate strategy so i would argue that to leave the republicans in practice are
5:24 pm
receptive that they recognize these opportunities when we have the debates about changing the structure of the program etc. but the thing is they're back into it. they are not actually going to really look at how we move the center on some of these issues or how do we frame things more constructively they are getting to that after rather than before hand and that is a huge problem because if you're going to have to make those arguments available you have to from the populist arguments regardless. i would say if you look what's a romney loses and you have a different republican nominee, if you have a nominee from the state like florida or new jersey then you are talking about dense urban coastal states that which you are actually forced. colorado is a state where president obama really olver performs, you have a large number of voters turning over
5:25 pm
$100,000 a year and latino voters and unmarried women. he's not doing as well as any of us haven't dissipated there. whereas in ohio he's doing better than many anticipated. i think if you had a different nominee connecticut is the place he's doing better than people anticipated so there are these targets of opportunity the u.n. to think carefully and deliberately about the way that you frame your policy, and paul ryan to raise the kind of idea who paul ryan is and what he believes but one reason a lot of the more impressed is that she is someone that is always very careful to say i support a safety net we want to modernize the safety net and make it more sustainable for the future of that message has gotten drawn-out in part because it doesn't resume for what you're from the activists and also what is friend because they haven't been able to successfully counter the training from the other side partly because it doesn't seem natural to them that if you have someone that
5:26 pm
can make the argument and a compelling way someone from a dance urban rivers electorate maybe we could see a very different result. >> you talk about republicans being backed into it but they're objecting to it because the nature of the republican primary electorate isn't just an accident so it's hard to see in the short run how you have the tragedy's to the republican party that is the force that is backing someone like mitt romney into a more conservative position on the range of issues than he might normally take. >> i think that is a great and important point and when you see people able to overcome that to some extent, george w. bush is a classic example, she had a series of national advantages and recognition that allows him to get through the primary process without having to establish his authenticity to the extent met romney had to but he had some kind of a -- in massachusetts the state that he had been running in for some time he knew it extremely well, he barely won the election
5:27 pm
against a week in a good candidate and the issue was english-language learners but wound up moving of the last minute so this is someone who is a very kind of smart and determined person but not someone who like boesh's had a deep and organic connection. this is something you heard from a lot. >> it's also gotten worse. it's harder it's not just one was good at it and romney is not [inaudible] >> i think it's a really important point. i think there's a space and a lot as well. no question that the current republican primary electorate is a leash on the party in terms of its ability to reach out or if you look at the polling, whites divide exactly in half on whether there is a demographic change going on good or bad for the country overall and among those that think it's bad romney is 3-1 and so you look at the
5:28 pm
republican primary over 90% of the votes are what, and i think over 60% was over 50. these are voters who give very little leeway on emigration and there is no question it's far more important than any decision the reason he's having difficulties our strategic decisions in the spring and the choice to use immigration as the right on. gingrich and then also the willingness to get caught up in the movement on social issues you talked with the funding of planned parenthood and the a let obama whole those critical hispanic and college white women it's been double digits every month of his presidency. why does it increase the share on them and the controversy of deportation. it's just unbelievable political malpractice but it's interesting to watch on the democrats because he would say why didn't the democrats to immigration reform in 2009, 2010 and the figure was largely the fear of
5:29 pm
losing voters they have already lost a was fear of losing the blue-collar voters and a lot of the democrats say you do this i'm going to lose. they didn't do it and they lost anyway. what i find interesting about the bomb campaign in 2012 as a far greater extent in 2008 he could lead the democratic coalition on emigration and the immigration sidey donaghey marriage at the price of mobilizing coalition which is essential the young people and minority in college plus white especially women. and i think if the romney performance in a way in 56 or 57 it's hard to imagine the conversation and republican party the way the strategy is
5:30 pm
liable on emigration can they really make is it a deeper and broader problem, how successful do you think they can be? it doesn't look like it's happening now. as marco rubio himself says immigration is a gate reissue on the other views if they are good enough on emigration, but not all latino voters but for many this is where romney isn't getting a hearing on other issues on the economic issues they are not in the paper with the hispanic population that is interested in the investments in their young people to be educated and have support to have a shot at the american
5:31 pm
dream. to the whole experiment. we were talking about this what if jeb bush and martinez was the ticket this year. about the hispanic vote we would be talking about the disappointment with obama on the economy and immigration and how jeb bush is perfectly positioned with 50% of the latino vote instead of the 25% that romney had and would shift the electoral map so dramatically that we would be talking about the southwest in a very different way. the republicans have an opportunity to reposition themselves with the hispanic community. john mccain himself says it starts with immigration, not the only issue. but it's quite right. how does the republican candidate run the gauntlet of the primary season in which he attacks from the right. we talked with meg wittman and she was determined to run as a republican in california with of the republican party out since
5:32 pm
wilson demonized the latino population which got attacked by jerry in the primary and brought out pete wilson and wanted to deport her nanny by the end of the election. the hispanic vote turned out in huge numbers for jerry brown who did little to win the election. >> we could easily be having this conversation about the left but to totally change. as you were saying when you're talking about why obama is likely to drop 43% of white even slightly lower, but republicans have set themself a hurdle that is so high by allowing them 80% of the growing population the share that you have to win becomes reagan and its hard to match the greatest lancelet of modern times every four years. >> to follow on that point, you
5:33 pm
know, looking at the report and looking at the growth of the minority voters will, you can't just assume because there is a growth that these are space debate could democratic votes in the african-american republican gets very few african-american votes that is not true with respect to the to hispanic republicans and i think it is a longer term for the republican party because it is hard to learn about the primary electorate in the short run but if in the long run the republicans can get themselves right on emigration i actually there's every reason to believe that they could do better. one thing i would make is that the of multiple generations born in the u.s. and they become more moderate on a lot of social issues for the example sitters hopes that with the catholic church and more recent immigrants and the choice and gay issues you might have some traction that's not true and the
5:34 pm
residents from younger people on the gay rights and so we have a moderation on those issues. so, i think at any rate it is very complicated and it isn't a give me. >> it's true that when you look at the unemployment rate among african-americans it is quite high and has been for some time. yet it is a constituency that overwhelmingly supports the president's reelection. i say that in a complicated way when you look at they are likely to report the candidates and more tax sensitive perhaps and when you have a period of which upward mobility in this very large and growing constituency is stalled that doesn't benefit republicans in the contrary, it actually could harm them quite a bit. that is the kind of open question if we are looking at the era of economic stagnation for say a decade, that is going to have a particular impact on the electorate.
5:35 pm
you talk about how this isn't sort of a racially polarized among latinos, the look of the dominican voters and if you look at the idea that the mexican americans in southern california are a group that has been rationalized in certain ways and also in terms of the political identity i think the partisan identity is very strong system to meet localized phenomena and economic stagnation will further, deepen and entrenched the difficulties republicans face that republicans really need upward mobility in order to make these among the latinos and also to kind of move away from this idea that there's a single issue constituency as a good one. so and that the thing about the taxes that i mentioned is that you have this -- i keep thinking about this as an emerging strategy and i take your point about the primary. that is a pretty big issue. when you are looking at the opportunity for the republican candidate who does well among
5:36 pm
the households making over 1,000 is a constituency from the is not actually both strongly over performance on these groups and they might resonate with them the that the politics change considerably as the tax base change so when you look at the conservative folks that talk about the idea of instead of just calling for more marginal tax cuts when to call for the dramatic expansion of the child care tax credit and the idea that republicans are taught in the 1990's. that's an idea in the book and that a lot of other folks have talked about as well. >> is that an issue that really resonates? >> it is not. >> some people have said that barack obama represents the vote as well as the japanese jackson vote. it's very formidable.
5:37 pm
would you ever have a republican primary candidate that can unite and george bush as someone that did that and has been identical to him. the problem that mitt romney faces is that us keep the bush rates and have the tax cut for the middle earners at which totally kind of marginal change and then rick santorum might defeat in michigan said he released a plan that was designed to appeal to "t wall street journal" editorial page, totally contingent. some move primary voters that when you look at it the sensibility and the what they thought they had to accomplish, that is what they decided to do but you can imagine let's just do a really big child tax credit and do all these other things that will essentially give a lot of these urban, educated upper middle class voters in states that are not going away regardless to pay the higher
5:38 pm
taxes and pay dramatically lower taxes, that is the kind of thing that would resonate with primary voters and require a level of imagination and credibility with the primary electorate. some of the primary electorate is 50 slash 50. it's not -- it's obviously not disproportionate so romney of course is totally the upscale candidate. he won the college graduates of almost every state including the southern state and lost non-college in most state and there was a classified in the race. so, there isn't an overwhelming balance but what is is an ideological preponderant, something like 80% of the republican primary voters and the conservatives. spaghetti can imagine threading a needle different like mike huckabee who has greater credibility with upscale republicans or vice versa. i think that you could see someone.
5:39 pm
>> romney didn't have to do the things he did on immigration in particular to win. with rick santorum he made choices that made life a lot easier in the spring and more complicated in the fall. >> we are talking about what the republicans should do but they become much more assertive in this issue which is a big change on immigration for example a few years ago rahm emanuel himself when he was winning the democratic majority counsel, conservative democrats, stay away from this issue because when you bring it up and rally conservatives hurt you with swing voters and put you on the defensive. what did barack obama do this year? he leaned into the issue. he defined his age saying we're going to lose the white voters if you do this. if the african-american president helps, thereby hurt with white swing voters he did it any way and the response was quite remarkable that it did
5:40 pm
lead to the uptick in enthusiasm among hispanics and swing voters were glad somebody did something about the issue that they find -- >> [inaudible] >> exactly. republicans are not only painting themselves in the corner on this but democrats are increasingly learning how to take advantage of that fact. >> with what you said about downscale, having been alienated by a bomb in the part of immigration the point you are raising earlier was pretty keen it's going to be but a pretty large maybe it will be the same as mccain or a little bit more and it's enough to get reelected and made the since the part of a coalition so how do you keep them down on the farm. they need an activist government what appeals to these voters and this is very much up for grabs.
5:41 pm
>> first of all if obama wins in this election on a national basis they would go down from 40% it's been described as the victory 40 years later of the coalition and minorities of which there were not enough of them in the 1972 and now there are enough to win that race. obama consistently runs better armonk the upper middle west than he does anywhere else. so ohio, michigan, wisconsin, iowa, in particular the numbers are a little better he's running at 44 or 45 in ohio and part of that is the auto industry and part of it is more of a union kind of tradition but the reality is the big anomaly and another part by the way is that fewer of the white working class
5:42 pm
in the midwest evangelical which is a part of what drives down the number nationally. >> it's an anomaly that is working right now and obama's fever to read these are voters who are being buffeted by this economy. they have little reason to feel a lot of loyalty to either party either party has shown that they can deliver the positive economic results in their life and they won't take my money and give it to people which is essentially kind of going back to the 80's politics which in the welfare at it and medicare so they are now running about 60% nationally among those voters. but i think it would be very difficult for the democrats to get back to the point they are winning most and then i think the call for democrats is different. they have to avoid the floor falling out which obama seems to have maneuvered himself in the spring it looked like a bottomless falling out and now
5:43 pm
he is back looking at the modern we're the losses are running 36%. it's very hard to figure out the collection. many democrats thought the white voters more tangible. they would come to the welfare health care program. maybe when it goes into effect it will change but it's a very difficult challenge. >> you mentioned in particular in michigan, wisconsin and ohio you have the complete republican control and the big labor battle. i do a lot of work and looking across 2011 before a lot of that consistently democrats were doing better in those states where you had really pitched battles even if they left the left walker in wisconsin it had an impact to have a discussion about the workers and labor and i thought that was -- when we talk of the future for the
5:44 pm
democrats in the white working-class obviously the labor unions are somewhere on the decline. but there is a way to think about it through the labor movement to actually do better in the white and blue collar voters. >> i know it is a big part of your book. do you think it is a matter of the benefits? >> one thing i wanted to run out is when you get the export oriented states when you look at ohio and iowa these are states that are much better in the national economies. and so, that this kind of one of the reasons a lot of people said why is romney talking about the deficits, debt and deficit given that we have the employment crisis and much of the reason is the new look at the states they thought of as a target of violent hampshire this is just an issue that resume sit it is almost a kind of psychic quality that resonates and i think that that is one thing to keep in mind and you have these kind of strands that do not always come here and a way that works for you if you are a candidate so that is wanting to keep in mind.
5:45 pm
it's interesting to think about when you have this kind of stagnation for the high end but a broad swath of the electorate. what does it mean. one thing it means is this not enrollment in the last two or three years to get medicaid. when bill clinton gave a talk at the democratic national convention to was incredibly shrewd because he didn't talk about medicare they talk about medicare it's a real wedge into the numbers between the two campaigns. a really is medicaid and it's a lot of white working-class folks as well as the underrepresented minority backgrounds as well. so, i think that when you think about how the republicans need to talk of it, i think that is
5:46 pm
the funny thing about crime -- ryan. he has in some respects gotten a right and toxin at how we actually care about the safety net. it matters a lot to us in the free enterprise society and a dynamic society we need to have it so it is not some kind of a side thing that we have a garnish on the soudet, that kind of an incredibly important part of making the whole system work. the problem is that, you know, the reason why he excites a lot of activists is for other reasons, the way in which he sometimes uses the very apocalyptic language about the threat to the free enterprise and what have you come and i think that is one reason why the governors have a big advantage over legislators. if you look at someone like mitch daniels, for example, and he also had a higher share of the african and latino vote in the state but he is someone that has talked about the jury conservative ideas and he also ruled backed the republican
5:47 pm
employees in the state and in a very prosaic way that wasn't a ideologically charged yet people who shared his theological progress of the recognized but on the other hand he was able to reach across by talking about things that is a very basic level of how to improve the provision of services. he also was deeply interested in the working of the medicaid program, for example make it more accessible and improving its cost so that is a very attractive model and i also think like a lot of conservatives what would the daniels campion have looked like? he kind of has a lot of liability and weakness and he's not a terribly charismatic guy but on the other hand and would have been an interesting contrast with the president. >> any questions? >> you know, you noted the minority share of the eligible voter population is up three points from 2,000 but you also
5:48 pm
noted dissident clear how it is in the effort. what is the history, how closely does the growth in the etd truck with the change in the electorate because all the calculations are based on the white share of the remaining at least as high as it was. >> looking back over the last 20 to 30 years to see the increase in the voter population. estimate that is the problem with the strategy generally we've seen the reason why the minority share of the voters increase like clockwork for decades it's basically because the share of the population of eligible voters increasing it at the rate so the two things can be tracked each other. that doesn't mean it's actually certain as well but it's a safer bet that we will then that it won't. but i can understand why they like the assumption.
5:49 pm
it just makes the barrier that the need to cross so much higher that you have to factor in the have another couple points for the minority voters. >> it seems like not totally. >> if it goes up to 28 and obama as share goes about all 81 or 82 those of which are in the possibility of another member needs to become almost vanishingly small are like 37%. and, you know, i think it is just for a lot of people that is going to be a big adjustment like what it means to be in the country. traditionally the majority obama is the first to win by double digits. no one has done that before and the margin is getting bigger. the bigger issues for democrats because it in terms of the long-term stable majority winning only 40% of white is hard to see how that happens but, you know, the idea is a wake-up call for the country that we're living in a different place than many of us that grew
5:50 pm
up. estimate does that also and course the national journal talked about the majority of the democratic caucus in congress in 2013 would be either the women or minority so if obama wins and to have a majority female and minority caucus it reinforces how different the democratic party is going to be in the long run and in the short run it's green to cause a lot of stress among the white voters. >> which is going to be happening. >> a think it probably is. >> let me ask you one more question and then turn over to the audience you are to some extent a representative of the side of the spectrum here. let's say for the sake of argument that in fact obama does win this election as it seems more probable than not. there will be a lot of disappointment on the reblican side. how should it play out? how close are the people going
5:51 pm
to grapple if this does happen with some of the issues we have been discussing? >> the way that we will both discipline the conservative activists and democrats. basically the reason why the ideologue's like me care about this election as the affordable care racked. i think that when you look at a lot of the folks on the right, there is a real belief that the affordable care act creates a universal health care system that is going to prove problematic and lots of ways and you also year a lot of the liberal policy scholars well, basically the divide between the exchanges is a tricky one and it's hard to see how it will play out. we can have a debate about it but this is going to prove consequential than it is understood yet it is extremely difficult to retrench once you have an expansion of this kind and people say well bill clinton's that was defeated over the 20 years you did have a
5:52 pm
number of coverage expansion experts through schip etc that have seen to it to the public role as providing coverage and has expanded dramatically. so, i think that it's hard to see how you reverse the creation of the exchanges and i think it will evolves into a different system and it's something that the conservatives and liberals will do to get out over but it will make coverage central to the politics and so then you are going to see a generation of republicans who are going to reconcile themselves and basically talk about how to fix this because when you look at the estimates for how to medicare would cost the didn't quite come true. the picture was extremely different and in a way it's a lesson for the republicans because in 1964 you had goldwater as the nominee and the result of that is that you had the enormous democratic super majorities in both houses of congress and you were able to
5:53 pm
see the creation of programs when you think about the conservatives right now they are still wrestling with the legacy of medicare and medicaid programs that had been created during that period when we got this person that is in it theologically appealing candidate that paved the way for a dramatic change in the size and structure of the government. so we think that yes, you will have them running she doesn't want to get rid of the act she wants to fix it. there will be a far more common solution but that is what a lot of the progressives are hoping for. what it means is the partisan democrats might actually experience the losses while that progressive goal the coverage expansion proven durable might be achieved. >> agreed. fantastic discussion. let's turn it over to the audience. right in the front row.
5:54 pm
>> donors illustrated magazine dealing with the entrepreneurs and the democratic shift. it deals with our coverage. the 2010 census if you extrapolate the data for what they are projecting your kind of looking at 38% to 62% as far as white minorities to the minority split, non-hispanic whites and vignette about 120 million minorities. so is there any data that you have because you are speaking about even if it was 28% use to track 10% less than the actual population composition in america. so do you have data that shows how the population demographic breakdown in comparison to the voter purge as a patient? >> the share of eligible voters in the united states who are
5:55 pm
minority is at this .29 or 30% below its share of eligible voters and the share of eligible voters. if we get 28% in 2012 is below which in turn is substantially below the share of the population because of the citizenship issues so that's the reason you see the difference and that is primarily driven by asians is there such a difference in the minority share of eligible voters. >> i think frank would agree with this. bill frye who does a lot in the brookings institution says the gap between the minority share of the population and a minority share of the vote should narrow at an accelerating rate over time because so much of the minority population growth are now native-born hispanics who
5:56 pm
are citizens. 50,000 of the native born hispanics to 18 every month. and will do so for apparently 20 years to be so in theory there is an eight-point get or so of the minority share of the population and the eligible voter population should be narrowing more quickly than it has because so much of the globe has a natural increase. >> to add on the hispanic vote for example there's a large number of eligible hispanics who won't vote this time to do this 23 million eligible hispanic voters and a little over 12 million will vote. that 12 million as a 26% increase over just four years ago. said both things are happening at the same time. huge increases in the number of the voters even though there's a huge gap between the eligible and participating voters.
5:57 pm
>> [inaudible] >> it's hard to overestimate the importance and is mitigating factors that means the increase in the minorities doesn't automatically translate into exactly level on the voters as you see in the population but that nevertheless means as the population grows that the voters go up in tandem even if there's a difference between the levels of people should never say just because the minorities especially hispanics are less likely to be able to vote, the trend won't produce an increase in the hispanics that would be incorrect inferences. right there. >> linus stevan. there were to swing states from years ago that you did not talk about in terms of this election, missouri and indiana. are those in the romney camp now to be thought of asking states?
5:58 pm
>> maybe people on the panel would disagree. i see it that way. there is no evidence that obama has been for indiana. the best that he's done in any poll was four or five points down. misery is kind of interesting. if you look at the state the act will demographic and geographic shift taking place within the state their more conservative which is quite unusual so even though missouri was raised within the margin most people see that raises the margin is getting wider than the gop. >> people often point to a place like we county north carolina as a county that is making more liberal or too lanning that would be otherwise that the people come to wake county from somewhere else so if they're coming from the northeast of the united states etc., that could theoretically make a state like pennsylvania more competitive as people go to northern virginia
5:59 pm
etc. the could be true even if pennsylvania is overwhelmingly democratic because of the more friendly terrain under the circumstances. >> basically what's happened is when i first started coming into politics in the 80's it's always decided by the monsters of the midway. the midwest and the swing states are preponderant the whitewater demographically and heavily blue-collar. now it's emerged in the last eight years to second pathway available to the democrats and previously heavily read state devotee of the set so the same forces that obama himself and bodies, the well-educated and diverse and the kind of southeast conference north carolina, virginia and florida and southwest conference of nevada, colorado and mexico with arizona and georgia kind of beat behind each case. and in the long run, you know, is striking how obama is holding
6:00 pm
up in the western state into long run though, places like this where the democrats hold the coalition of minorities and college whites and social liberal seem to be more of the future of the party also, again, this election i think obama's strength in the midwest surprised me house well as he has among the blue-collar whites in the election. ..
6:01 pm
in terms of the rate of demographic changes they're having. some states and not changing and all like ohio and iowa. some are actually changing fairly rapidly, even in the midwest. right there. i'm sorry. the person back there. yes. >> fellow at the journalism school at the university. i just would like to know if there is any research data on the enthusiasm in the last few weeks. i mean, especially among democrats. we see that there was a balance after the convention. i don't know if they're is a danger for the democratic. romney's just don't know. >> right.
6:02 pm
well, people in the campaign were worried about that. at least the most recent data we had, the best national data from the big appeal research center po said the enthusiasm gap between republicans and democrats essentially vanishes. so something is clearly happening to rev up that enthusiasm. it's possible the from the amperes to run an increasingly troubled campaign, maybe they will decide it is in the bag. i doubt that will happen. as you were talking earlier about the latino enthusiasm that seems to be growing as well. >> earlier this year the numbers >> were terrible. >> and we actually were working with latino in the field when obama made his announcement in may to protect the young people eligible for the dream act. and so we were able to do it before and after and it was really quite a will mark will difference. the question was whether the surge of enthusiasm at that point would it be sustained until election day. according to the recent tracking poll that they release it has
6:03 pm
actually gone even further up. we saw it in 2010. there was a narrative. and to a large extent they didn't except in places like nevada, colorado, california. there were largely fire walls in a wave of election for the first time since 1930 that both chambers to the flip. a pretty remarkable performance. again, these were states that georgia lee was carried it doesn't for. nevada, colorado, new mexico. new mexico is basically no wonder about grass state. >> the gentleman with back there. actually two of them. taken in sequence. >> hello. there are a group of voters who are often described as socially liberal but fiscally conservative. is that a large group in
6:04 pm
numbers? if so, why did they seem to be getting very little respect during this election cycle? >> i mean, you know, broadly speaking that defines a lot of the white upper-middle-class who is of to be right of center on economics and left-of-center on social issues. that, in fact, the increasing prominence since the 1960's, what i like to call the classic version. the democrats now run better among white collar the blue-collar whites. a very rare pattern in the industrialized world. obama is likely, he would run from his position in three of the four quadrants. revenue of three or four points down.
6:05 pm
he is selling his numbers. invest them in many polls exceeding it getting a to 54, 55. at think this is part of the issue for republicans. the strategy built on emphasizing the economy and economic discontent, a big chunk of obama's vote, minorities are not fundamentally economic the best voters. they're voting and other stuff. the women are voting largely on social issues. the minorities' voting in a sense of respect. pretty much with that in the basis of gets down to. i think it matters a great deal. i think you were saying before kaj it creates a real challenge for republicans in that while they may move, it's easier to imagine the moving and immigration than it is on some of the issues they're making it so easy for democrats. by the way, because white women
6:06 pm
have floated. this is not something new. this is a structural change is part of our politics. the big reason why from republicans from 508 to 88. now what we see, they follow them. that's what the states are following them. it wasn't just hispanics. it was socially liberal white women and obama today, 56 of 58%. >> i will just say abortion is a height tension issue on both sides of the debate. important to keep in mind. >> things like planned
6:07 pm
parenthood. planned parenthood which every republican presidential nominee in bourse -- endorsed. i agree. abortion is what it is. you do have this divide, but i think other elements came in in a way that had not previously and all this is allowing obama told his vote among those women. >> you don't actually have soft dollar donations going to the party. you have democrats as republicans did in the 70's him of posting the first wave of regulation have to rely more on upper-middle-class donors. that shapes the issue about the campaign. >> immigration is not an issue that is the core base republican conservative issue. there is a sizable but minority group within the party who cares very deeply about it. why has it become a position of the party now when, in fact a
6:08 pm
mother is such a huge and growing voter block from it is an important issue. >> she might have different views. i think that when it was refracted through the prism of a media that is like a, all that matters is are you going to build a fence. and there are a lot of folks that believe that we need more rigorous immigration enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we
6:09 pm
have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can give a damn about the passions of the seat. you are that derek jeter of political analysts. appreciated. >> all right. is that the first time? >> it's a long time.
6:10 pm
>> did you guys examine the commonwealth role of the election growing demographic diversity in northern virginia, lavin county, the target rich environment for the obama campaign. how emblematic that race might beor the nation. the other thing, given up loan habit of being the party of patrilineal succession who is in the on deck circle keeping with the sports metaphors? who is in the on deck circle for republicans should governor romney lose the cycle? >> okay. virginia, i feel like virginia is the tipping point state this year in that whoever won it is most likely to win, alice felt it was virginia. now it might actually be -- as of aisle because romney could win ohio and still lose. virginia, it really shows the
6:11 pm
two moderate coalitions. 10% which is an important dimension that we talked about before. part of the reason has been a growth is important, not only deepening but broadening. freezing places that had not previously been affected by it. a stronger evangelical blue-collar presence for romney. then pulling the classic version is wider in virginia than any other place us in this year. and an enormous gap that really kind of some of the change in class nature. >> college-educated whites are much more favorable.
6:12 pm
>> non college whites. >> about the same. >> college whites going from 44 to 48. he's actually doing better. 44-32. an enormous gap. now, the democratic member, the high 20's, 29 as i recall. so right now obama has the edge because he has the aids nationally. a very represented state, and in the center race we are now seeing routinely as the average 85% are voting for the democratic senate candidate. 85 percent of the people voting for romney. we are moving into iraq was a parliamentary system. i think that by voters as well as by legislators and the way they behave. i think it is very likely whichever candidate wins the presidency of in virginia that party will win the senate race. >> tested the obvious to all one thing when you're looking at the affluent voters in northern virginia-based, many are connected to the boom in public spending, and i think that is
6:13 pm
also something that's a pure perception of the two candid it's. >> it is -- the numbers are very close to nationally which different. it is a little better. not college whites are a little worse, so you have this enormous gap. i think it goes back to the point where in states where a lot of the blue-collar whites are often evangelicals, obama is a specialist. >> a view on the succession cost? >> i'd be interested. certainly a lot of very strong candidates. the really interesting question, the democratic primary. not as intensely disliked by a kind of less of what republican than commonly understood. someone with a very distinctive political identity. >> i think the basic question will be, is there a voice that says the party has to change
6:14 pm
direction and try to reach a broader range of voters? particularly minority voters. does that debate -- certainly there are no shortages of candid it's that could be an obvious champion for conservative bring a ryan. the voice from the bleachers did not scale up. i think kind of running for president did not look as good in tampa. have to retool to be serious, but i think daniels damaraland, in different ways, the bigger question is, is there something -- is there a candidate who advances that jeb bush analysis? and it is not guaranteed that romney will lose. obama has three great weeks at 50. it is not like he is at four with his big margin of error. if he does lose, i think the big question will be, is there someone who challenges the party
6:15 pm
i think someone who explicitly makes that case would do worse. look at bob macdonald and virginia, not the national candid, but he is someone who clearly was socially conservative. telegraph that clearly to his voters. so he was able to actually go after suburban voters, what have you. because he thought of him as reliable and safe he was able to find things differently and very effectively, so i tend to think that is the better model than someone who explicitly says, hey, compare huntsman, for example, to george w. bush. >> and arubia would be someone. i can imagine jeb bush as being the intellectual leader, but not running himself. it attracted steel and who was not entirely in that can't get a little further in his direction. i can imagine the scenario. >> far be it for me to predict what the republicans are going to do. at that there are going to pass immigration reform in the mid
6:16 pm
2000's. >> you weren't alone. >> i think jeb bush is going to reposition himself. he went to tampa and said, were acting stupid and immigration. writing a book and immigration reform that will be less next year. i think he is positioning himself to be the guy who is conservative, catholic, married to a mexican american to my great education track record and will be well-positioned to be the, if we're going to modernize someone to feel safe with him he could be the guy. >> one last word since we did have that question. you see what i'm saying it looks like a obama share the money although it is generational lines. it's bigger now pump creeping up. not there yet. thirty-four-point margin. the pupil had him at 30 points, that is getting close. 61 percent. when all is said and done he may be lined up with upper the
6:17 pm
outsized margin among millenniums but not as big as he had in 2008 and, of course to my mother related question is whether to an extent these folks will turn out in 2012. keep in mind at 2008 it was not really that astronomical a turnout. >> the generational makes. >> right. 40 percent non-white. that's part of it. >> what millenniums are noticeably more. >> 55 percent among white under 30. in our poll we headed down to 50. >> that's pretty good. anyway. i think short answer is looking pretty good for obama. quite as good as 2012. i wanted thank you all for turning out. a lot of good information. vote early and often. thank you. >> tonight on c-span2 iranian president a speech to the united
6:18 pm
nations. he was there earlier today along with other world leaders to was that at 8:00 p.m. eastern and five pacific. taking a look at the presidential candidates' schedules this week president obama spent the day in ohio campaigning in bowling green and kent. some of the president travels to virginia for rallies. his republican challenger mitt romney was in virginia today and stays in the region tomorrow with more campaign stops in virginia and the district of columbia. meanwhile, the vice-president of candidates on the campaign trail, paul ryan spend a day in colorado, vice-president biden campaign tomorrow and florida. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries i will initiate something i will call prosperity pacs, working with the private sector to identify the barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurship and
6:19 pm
entrepreneurialism in developing nations. opening the market to u.s. investment and trade, developing nations will receive u.s. assistance package is focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, property rights. >> we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values or western values, they are universal values, and even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, i am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serves as the basis for peace in our world. >> text wednesday, october 3rd , mitt romney in president obama be in their first presidential debate moderated by jim lehrer of the news hour from the university of denver. watch ending dates, including
6:20 pm
our live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the debate at nine and after the debate your reactions to mccall's, e-mails demint suites. all of our live coverage. >> the data changed my life forever. it changed america's life. and i'm going to go through a power point presentation which is going to outline the accounts of the historical account of the attack as things happened, as things transpired that date. it's pretty intense. a lot of things happen very quickly. i'm going to do my best not to ramble on and go too fast. i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room, and you will get a real sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain, the national command authority as a nation of 300 million americans was attacked by 19 abcaeight it terrorists. >> more from retired lieutenant
6:21 pm
colonel inside the president's bunker this weekend on american history tv sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific on the c-span three. >> next discussion on the jewish vote and the recent history of u.s.-israeli relations. george w. bush's former liaison to the jewish community joins former clinton reelection campaign team member. this was held at fordham university law school in new york city and is just under 90 minutes. >> we are here again once again for the wine institute in connection with this conference dedicated to examining that 2012 presidential election and the way it may be being shaped by the memory of the holocaust and the politics of israel. we can find no to more interesting people to discuss this topic for many, many
6:22 pm
reasons. first, a former 3-term mayor of new york city, ed koch. [applause] people forget, i do not, but people forget that he actually started out in congress. so with the discussion that we are talking about, it's not merely about his days as america also, he, too, has run for congress and knows what that means. i think in his more recent you can think of him as a kingmaker in guiding the jewish vote. many people -- well, he may not agree to this, but he made many people think of him as a king maker of sorts of where the jewish vote is headed in that is another reason to have him. and he may disown the kingmaker title, but to some degree our next guest, congressman bob
6:23 pm
turner might say that the support of the mayor had given was in fact helpful. >> it was beyond helpful. was critical. >> all right. let's go back. a king maker. >> bob turner is in fact, a brooklyn congressman in his first term. very decent and likable man. very much involved in his first term, the foreign relations committee, and then security committee. obviously decided to get your hands dirty in those difficult issues that pressed the united states. so we are happy to have you here. it is important to remember that -- yes. [applause] do you know why he may one day become a kingmaker himself? what we have to point out in
6:24 pm
acknowledging of turner's election is that it required the mayor to cross party lines. if he did not know, bob turner is a republican in what would be otherwise considered a democratic district a brooklyn. the mayor is not the first. and queens, you're right. thank you for correcting me. this is not the first time that the mayor had crossed party lines. of course he voted for george bush in the second election in 2004, and he actually family said, i don't agree with a single thing that george -- >> a single domestic issue. >> with the exception of the fact that i think he is handling terrorism in a superior way. that's coming to you, was the most important issue. >> right. >> in the case of the movement
6:25 pm
support for bob turner you and i did an event shortly thereafter in which you explained your support and said, look, i've wanted to send a message to president obama that i did not think that he was sufficiently handling his foreign policy correctly with respect to is ralph. >> sufficient and respectful to the jewish community. >> right. with respect specifically to his support for israel. then he said, well, i eventually met with president obama, and the very much solicited my support. i decided to support him again. >> your briefing it too quickly. >> i want to step in here because it was apparently just last week that you delivered a speech at a synagogue. today in michael good ones column i continue that discussion. the new york post. >> and this is a discussion in which your yet again critical of the obama administration. >> i have never seen a perfect
6:26 pm
candidate, and that never had a perfect and it. i wasn't perfect. and i will always speak out. but if you read the article today, my other utterances, it has always been stated that i am still on the obama train. i will explain why. >> we would definitely like you to do that. first specifically at think would you address last week was the question of the red line. >> not so much the red. >> tell us what you said last week. >> okay. i was incensed as i believed that every american was that what occurred in both egypt and libya. in egypt the embassy was overrun. the egyptian copts ran away and did not protect the embassy in
6:27 pm
libya the military, the libyan military, libyan cops ran away. it did not protect the embassy. worst of all was the fact that the ambassador was murdered, killed. i'm not sure exactly how, whether he expects heated or how it actually occurred. along with three other personnel. and i did not believe that the american response was adequate. the egyptian defense strike at the american embassy in egypt initially put out a statement which was denunciatory of the video that some muslims were saying was the reason for the tax. and was not sufficiently
6:28 pm
denunciatory of the egyptian government in my judgment. then hillary put out a magnificent statement which was followed then by that white house repudiating the american embassy statement and making a statement calling the egyptian government's task. in libya, there were even more conciliatory because the libyan prisoner had denounced the attack. but that's not adequate. if the libyan government cannot control its cops and its military and provide protection for a foreign embassy, it's not a government. we should be denunciatory and we should punish. i doubt that there is a single country in the world in western civilization that would not have
6:29 pm
immediately called back its ambassador in egypt. still possible. and suddenly cut off or put in terms related to the 2 billion that egypt receives from the united states, and i'm sure libya receives money. i don't know how much, but i'm sure it does. the climate was even greater because the american ambassador in libya has held the so-called arab spring. i had never been supportive of the air spring. the columnist at the times and elsewhere, i said to myself, we are jettisoning people. they're not great people, but at least their friends were people who i am sure will turn out to be hostile to us. it doesn't make any sense. why should anybody justice in the future? and not talking about mubarak
6:30 pm
and how we threw him under the bus. those were the background facts that caused me to react strongly . >> congressman, you are very much the beneficiary of a shift in jewish vote, your district. the you think that the evidence hit last week, the embassy a tax and various countries in north africa, the middle east will result in a further ongoing shift of the jewish americans changing their votes? >> i do, and i think there is more to follow. ..
6:31 pm
step to safe guard our staff we have heard the quote from the ambassador suggesting that he was comfortable and these people love me, yet today we find out that's not true. he issued a statement saying he's concerned about his own safety and welfare. so again, we have a big information gap and credibility gap with the administration, and that's coming -- this is going build. >> may i say . >> yes. sure. >> today "the new york times" portraying the interview with the new egyptian president if all because what the egyptian president said in effect was if
6:32 pm
the united states wants to have good relations with the arab world than with jipt, in effect that's the special relationship with israel. that's what it said. and you know, when the united states took own the role of mediator between israel and egypt, it was understood that there is not only special relationship, there's an alliance. israel is an ally of the united states, and that the united states, when it entered that position the palestinians knowing that said we still want the united states because we know that no other country could get israel to ultimately allow a second state palestinian state next to israel because it needs the security that the united
6:33 pm
states would provide in the event it didn't turn out well as many people think it wouldn't because, if you just look at the palestinian -- the situation today, i personally am for a two-state solution. do i believe it's going to happen in my lifetime? no. do the israels want it? yes. do the palestinians want it? i don't believe it. because if they did, they would be at the table negotiating. but they haven't been for more than a year. and the reason i believe that is because they think that ultimately that can wait out the western world and ultimately have a single state in which they will overwhelm the israeli. that is why if you ask the head of the palestinian authority
6:34 pm
mohammed -- [inaudible] which is what i was looking for. you ask him, do you accept a jewish state? not just the state of israel, but israel as a jewish state? he says don't ask me, i don't have to do that. let them look elsewhere. that's the heart of this. that's the very heart of it. if you're going to have two states one is muslim, one is jewish. now, that doesn't mean that christians can't live in the muslim state. they do now meaning on the west bank although they have fled because of their muslim neighbors so that now less than 2% of the arabs living on the west bank are christian. at one time, bethlehem had a christian majority.
6:35 pm
they have first lady. many of them have come to the ited states, and the position of -- which is the majority government on the west bank, not in gaza is that the people who left the sector now called israel should have a right of return. that was simply overwhelm jewish state, and it will not happen and everybody knows it will not happen with the consent of the israel. it will not happen. once again, while i believe, netanyahu believes he in the two-state solution, i do not think that the arab leadership believes in it, and certainly on the gaza strip has a covenant that still says that every jew that entered the palestinian
6:36 pm
mandate after 1917, must be expelled, and they have also declined to give up violence or accept any prior agreements. so for the arabs, in my judgment, it's a fake. >> congressman, given what you've heard the mayor say, i suspect you to some degree believe believe it, agree with him, do you think that president obama in listening to what mayor said has misread the politics of the mideast that he -- we remember his speech in cairo? >> i do. >> in which he never went to jerusalem after that or went israel in which there was a app gottic tone that overturned. and also, remember there was a ongoing new year messages to iran where the president was
6:37 pm
welcoming new year for the iranian people, and in the end, it doesn't appear as if the united states is enhanced the credibility and standing in the arab world after the con sill will story gestures and you heard mayor cox speak so grimly what you think the future will hold. what does your party think about that? >> i think we have not only a misreading, but a long headed mind set that at the coreof all the administration's problems in the middle east. four years ago, this administration set out to reset relationships and by so doing with the personal diplomacy and the apology we would win over the heards and minds of a increasingly radicalized islamic world.
6:38 pm
well, we've seen results of this in a short time, and we see a reluctance to understand what is really happening to correct the course and get back on a same policy. the -- not only are we on too often on the wrong side of this arab spring as it were, we fail to recognize that the monumental that is being built and the danger that it's posing. what -- we haven't gotten in to the iranian thing, . >> we'll definitely get. >> i think this administration has seems incapable of changing their mind to put this right. >> we'll -- this mind set, this tactics at handling the middle
6:39 pm
east, in both of your judgments, does it change the nature of the lek trait in the jewish in how they'll vote in the upcoming election? jewish historically it was always said about them in the recent elections that jew never vote their economic interest. even as they move from immigrants, they became professionals even still always supported the democratic party even though economically they could have been republicans. and then so that's one presumption, right this is why the democratic party had nothing to worry about jews don't move off of that no matter how much wealth they might achieve. and the idea jews vote with very much with israel in mind. they want to vote for candidates that support israel. is that still true? >> yes. >> can i please start? >> i'm not sure of the poll. i think poll on this issue of
6:40 pm
the position of israel and the voting pattern of jews shows that it's about the fourth issue down. that's my rex, not exactly sure, but it's in that area. we have forgotten that when the hole cast came, were killed and the holocaust, they have forgotten that. and historically jews have an enormous social conscious, which is reflected in a biblical adage justice, justice shall render the lord. why do they repeat the word justice twice? it is the response justice, not on for jews but justice for all people, that's why justice is
6:41 pm
repeated twice. i believe that. and it's an adage that i've lived my life be. >> you believe that jews have internalized that. >> absolutely. and i believe that when jews vote democratic as they do overwhelmingly, as i do overwhelmingly, it is because of social conscious. they say to themselves, there are lots of things that are important among them are social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion, food stamps, taxing, progressively, the wealthy and so forth. and foreign affairs, those are the two partnerships so to speak. and on the issue with domestic manners, with, you know, i don't know how you could be against the platform of the democratic
6:42 pm
party on those issue. now, you know, in fact, i can allude to something that bob and i read to and i, you know, when i we're going to get in to that part of the past the race or not. >> yes. >> okay. when i announce that i was going to take on the issue of sending a message to the president in this special election, there were only two special elections in the whole country. congress, and my friends political friends said you're crazy. that's impossible. it may not be possible, but i'm going try it anyway. i announced i was going to do what i could to make it a referendum sending a message to the president, i'm a democrat, i i expect to support him. i want him to know i disagree with his positions as they
6:43 pm
relate to a number of issues concerning the jewish community. >> but you, you know, you framed it earlier as respecting the jewish community. >> well. >> the first time i use that word. >> the reason it's -- it's not an unimportant distinction. >> maybe dr. freud, who knows. >> but in my event, i said, i was going lead challenge, and i got a call from the democratic candidate, david -- who i knew at the time. he was in the city council. i worked with him. i had a good relationship with him. and he is screaming at me on the telephone. which i could understand, and -- [laughter] and i said, david, this is not personal. not that that helped. [laughter] and he said, i can be the message. i'm thinking to myself, you can be the message that we send another so you wish democrat to
6:44 pm
washington? that's not the message. the message is that we send a republican, and then -- whom i've never met called and said let's talk about this and see if we can come to an agreement, and he -- i said please come up. he's a nice guy. highly intelligent. i said to him, look, i can only do this with you on the following basis. i'm sending a message to the president of my party, and you have to be sending a message to the national leadership of your party that you don't agree with them on privatizing medicare and social security and turning medicaid in to a block gram. i don't care about the other
6:45 pm
issues, on those issues, we have to have an agreement. and he said, he agreed with he me on that. i wouldn't expect him to on every aspect of that or of whole host of other issues i wanted that made clear. we agreed in writing that that was the key. and he kept his word and i kept my word on it. and he won, i think, with an 8-point margin. wasn't it? >> i think it was. >> roughly. >> unheard of there was 300,000 jews that live in the area. it was the first time in i think 89 years that the congressional district didn't go democratic. so i got a call a couple of weeks later from bill daily, who is the chief of staff of the president a wonderful guy. i know, him very well.
6:46 pm
and the brother of the former mayor of chicago. >> and the son of another mayor. >> right. not the son, the grandson. >> right. >> and he said i know you're coming to a party that the spt having for the u.n. delegates at 43rd street library. i said i am. he said would you like to talk with the president before then. i said sure thinking to myself who wouldn't? he said come a half hour early. and i came a half hour early, and the president came in, i won't give you all the details, but he said to me at the very opening, he said, i don't understand why the jews are upset with me. i'm supportive of their concerns. he's a warm, of a able charming
6:47 pm
guy, and honorable. i like him. i liked him before, i like him then, i like him now, and he spoke very twenty minutes and then he said your turn. [laughter] and i had ten minutes. and i won't go through the whole thing. what i said, mr. president, i would not have have been so critical of you when you said israel has to go back to the 67 lines even though they're indefensible, and even though i don't agree with you, had you also made demands upon amas, but you didn't. you left them out completely. you said israel doesn't have to deal with them until they give up their charter, violence, et. cetera. and he said to me, i'll never forget it. didn't i? i said no, mr. president, you
6:48 pm
did not. but he convinced me of the bona fideness. i mulled it over the next couple of days. i'm not going to stretch it out and convey a look at me, you know, i keep them wondering. i don't believe in that. i said, if i'm going to do it, i'm going to do it now. i called up the people who were involved, and i said, i'm on board the bus, and i agreed they said if you go to florida and sure? will you go to pennsylvania? i'll go anywhere you want me to go. i'm not sure i can do that anymore because of my florida condition, which i've told. i'm happy to do bill words boards and robo calls and videos and whatever it is. i don't the think i want to get in a situation where i'm needing hospitalization, and i have my own hospital. that i go to.
6:49 pm
and -- yeah. so that's where we are. >> congressman, i recently -- within the last year or or so did an event with eric cantor, very similar at the 92nd street y heavily jewish audience. it was packed. i didn't know there were this many jewish republicans. i don't know if they were all jewish republicans, but the place was packed, and in this discussion, one of the things he said is, you know, it's very surprising to me that more jewish americans don't support republican candidates precisely because of our feelings about israel and numbered issues that are important to the jewish community, which is i thought when you said respecting the jewish community. he was genuinely baffled. he said, look, i don't see how anyone can think that the democratic party is a superior defender of israel than the republicans. is that another reason why you
6:50 pm
might say at this election there might be more movement among jew rich republicans than we otherwise might have seen. >> it should be noted that eric canter, called me about the week of the election to say, you know, bob, this is the first time a republican has won the jewish vote. period. so maybe something is happening here. i got some interesting advice as soon as i got in to this. i haven't been in politics very long. first thing i heard, you have two jews, you have three opinions. >> three synagogues. >> [laughter] >> and so i found is a truism. the other is we look at the changing patterns, the wisest
6:51 pm
person i know in pick politics said that jewish vote is such that the conservative or the orthodox, you can get an appeal to. make sure you spell out your social agenda, you request get those. to be secular jewish vote, which is a big part of new york city, their religion is socialism, -- [inaudible] but what may get them back in the tent is israel. and we need to just shift and 20% would be enough to win the election, but the district is 33% jewish, perhaps more 44% catholic, and then others. so the
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
it doesn't feel warm, it's not a feel good feeling. on the other hand, when it comes to military spending the iron come defense system. it's not the first time egyptians ransacked an embassy. they ransacked the israel embassy. the second time in a year in egypt embassies are fair game
6:54 pm
and it was in fact apparently prime minister gnat netanyahu called obama immediately and got on the phone there was no at the point and said do something about this protect these people. >> and they saved israelis. >> you know, people like debbie wasserman schultz say this is the best president in american history for his support of israel. barack says in terms of military spending. but if you ask people on the street they have a different feeling on the feeling to obama to israel. >> the first thing is, i have taken the position up until recently that the israel should not be an, issue in the race because roughly the parties were both supportive of israel and for me the battle ground related to the domestic issues where
6:55 pm
there is clear cleavage between the two . >> you don't think there's that much. . >> i'm not -- that has been my position. i don't think that anyone can rightfully say that president obama is the best president as it relates to -- i think reagan was myself. i think bush . >> second bush. >> second bush was -- but he's acceptable in my judgment, and but i have become more critical before the reasons i gave earlier. and i don't want to -- i have to repeat. i hope to change them. i hope -- i talked to people and i know my views and i don't -- i'm not reluctant, you know, when i reporter calls me up, i tell them exactly what i think, and i have never believed in off
6:56 pm
the record conversations because they always appear if they are interesting. [laughter] maybe under somebody else's name. they will appear. so i'm never off the record. i tell people exactly what i think, and i will be as a consequences of occasionally making errors and we all maker roars. we're all human. i'm not bad at this stuff. and i have made very clear where i am. i hope that the president in further support of israel. not that he hasn't been. he made a magnificent speech at the u.n. in support of israel, he kept the palestinian authority from getting independ state imposed by the u.n. he did that. nobody else supported him on that. he has done some wonderful things. and i give him all the credit for it. and the people who gave him his
6:57 pm
political [inaudible] was the jewish communities. i understand that in chicago, so i believe when i'm talking about is do able. what i have said, frankly, all this could be wiped out in terms of bitterness and so forth. if the president were to just say an attack by iran on israel will be perceived by the united states as an attack upon the united states, and we will respond militarily. [applause] now i think, he could say that about saudi arabia too. in fact, and i made my statement, i said he should make it in terms of both because iran wants to destroy saudi arabia too. which is an ally of ours. >> all right. we're going get to iran in a moment. congressman, let's pick up a little on that. it's confusing, if you watch both conventions, if you listen
6:58 pm
to the spokes people for both parties, one will always claim they are superior than the other in their historic support of israel, and so you have people telling us the republicans are stronger, the president is shown again i've forget this effort to thwart that's something president obama has not received enough credit for. again within a year i had eric cantor and debbie wasserman schultz both jewish congresspersons one republican one democrat both saying opposite things. your party would do better in the white house for israel? >> well, i certainly believe so. and we're getting to a very critical period in diplomacy and state craft small things can
6:59 pm
mean an awful lot. when the president has not visited israel and when he snubs the prime minister, when he makes outrageous claims in the 67th border. these are con senses -- consequences. i think the boldness of some of the arab states right now are in direct consequence. these are big blunders as far as i can tell and undermining . >> the you mean the -- the boldest of the arab state and the nonresponsive in your . >> thinking there is that daylight . >> i see. >> of israel in the united states, and we have a lot of -- this is the an administration where a great deal of rhetoric, butlet look to the actions and i think they are rather
7:00 pm
disappointing. >> that's an interesting point, congressman. i wonder what mayor would say about this. are people who say there are a lot of nice photo-ops with the president and the gnat ya ha hue. netanyahu does it matter that he is eating . >> yes. >> would issue military support of diplomatic aid. >> part of it. >> there is a question whether barack obama supports israel but loving israel. >> you don't have to love it. does it belief it's in the interest of a united states to have a close relationship and support that relationship which every president before him has said is a special relationship, or does he believe that in order to satisfy the muslim world that somehow or other he has to
7:01 pm
separate us from israel, and what bob said is absolutely true. when the president -- by the way, the president's people, i have spoken to some of his people, said there was never a formal ask for a meeting. i believe them. i believe they are honorable people. so it may very well to be to attack the president for not having the meeting it's unfair. and he says that my contact said that the israeli who first said there was such a request had to walk that statement back. i don't know if that's true or not. but i accept it is true because the people told me this are honorable people. i agree with bob that the most important thing is not to give
7:02 pm
the muslim world the idea that if they keep attacking the united states and killing us, that we're going to somehow or other throw israel under the bus in order to have a better relationship with them and therefore, any time we do something that enlarges the space between us, we obviously the united states has an independent foreign policy, but it's in our interest to make sure that iran, if i can touch on it for a moment. >> we can. we are definitely going to end up with it. >> iran is an enemy of both the united states and israel. we know that. and there are no muslim countries that we can count on. can you count on pakistan? can you count on iraq? can you count on afghanistan
7:03 pm
when the troops are con? obviously not. we have spent billions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan, they hate us! they are killing us. we ought to be out of afghanistan tonight. [applause] but instead we are there and our young men are dying. and we're spending $2 billion a weak. and i read in the times, the reason we don't fix the capital dome, we don't have any money and we spent $850 million completing the american embassy in iraq. >> congressman, you were actually seated at in your new position when prime minister netanyahu visited congress a number of months ago, i believe you were at that point you were in that hall, and what we all remember about that day there
7:04 pm
were at least three standing ovations, there may have been more for an israel prime minister who addresses the house of congress, many people who were supporters of president obama thought it was incredibly presump use for the prime minister of israel to think that he should be addressing the how was congress, and that thomas friedman, the column nist for "the new york times" he rescinded this later, but i think he first said, well, those applause and standing ovations were paid for by the israel lobby. >> what ab outrage. >> can i jump in for a moment. >> you take tom friedman, you know what he said and never apologized for? that he urged the palestinians to engage in the third intifada and throw stones at israel soldiers. that was in the times in his column. i want to tell you, i was in
7:05 pm
israel in 1990-'91 when he called me up the tourist agency people are not coming and the intifada is on and the second intifada. could you come and maybe that could encourage people, americans to once again resume tour rich. i said sure. i met with teddy and i said that the point it was the mayor of geezer lum. the mayor of geezer lum. i want to show you the which they just found, he didn't tell me that there was a general strike in the old city, so we're going through the old city and had had no security it was amazing. i had -- he had nobody who protected him. and there were about 25
7:06 pm
reporters that were going through and suddenly there's a fuselage of stones, i'm hit on the head and bleeding terribly and ultimately i go to the hospital and i have nine stitches in my head. i'm telling you, it was in my eye, i would be blind. that tom findman who never apologized for it urged palestinian yabs to throw the stones at israel soldiers. if they defends themselves and shot people, who were threatening them with life and limb, then undoubtly tom friedman would be assailing those israel soldier for not being kinder. >> congressman, if you no doubt remember that day, is the support of israel simply genuine in the house of representatives? is is it based on -- i think i'm
7:07 pm
understanding there is a strategic interest in the united states to maintain the strongest relationship . >> i think with the democracy in the middle east. >> the relationship goes from strategy through culture through commonality of interest and it's genuine and both sides of the aisle. >>, i mean, it was one of the early days in congress. it was reported as an incredibly special moment to say that many standing elevation. >> actually, it was before i got there. >> it was before i got there. >> you would have stood. >> absolutely. [laughter] during a campaign i would have been jumping up and down. sure. [laughter] >> do either of you think that the jewish lek trait, the jewish vote has changed at all in recent times during the obama administration? and then the followup question to that, so we can pick apart both of them. do you think that the support among non-jews in the united states has changed in any way for their support of israel?
7:08 pm
>> okay. with respect to -- obama's support of the jewish community, when he ran, and got 78%, i think it went down to a low ultimate after the election and the things that it ensued 51% and then it rose and i'm sure it's over 60% currently. with respect to the american people, it's very interesting. democrats, at one point, not too long ago, i mean, only 48 percent of democrats were support iive of israel. this is in the general population, at the same time 85 percent of republicans were supportive. that the time, a huge difference. now it's gone up the democrats. i think it's in the 70s.
7:09 pm
>> you're saying that the support among republicans is actual higher. >> has always been higher for israel than is -- why yes. >> we're talking about the general population. >> among the general population, the percentage is higher among republicans. >> yeah. it happens to be a fact. it's a gallup poll. congressman, that's a nice lead in for you. >> well, i see a -- the leadership of the democratic parties seem to have taken a harder left turn is part of it and other things. there is a moderate democratic vote. there are the liberals with sanity, who need a place to go.
7:10 pm
>> we'll get to that. i don't think everyone realize. this is a term he coined. >> the -- you know, the republicans right now are not as welcoming to a large group that i think are dissatisfied or more than a little with the democratic leadership right now. also within the republican party we have our key party on the far right gets us problems, and -- dealing with, you know, it's not always easy. [laughter] so a lot of factors going on. >> why do you suppose the mayor's statistics are right. why do you suppose a higher percent able of republicans support israel than democrats? among onjews, why do you speos that's jew? >> i think we see a commonality of interest from culture to
7:11 pm
strategy and the history. i think also, we have, we republicans have an ability to look at reality. this islamic revolution is serious business. >> they want to kill us. >> too often in the house, or even in committee, we talk i'll hear democrats talk about so you your presbyterians and you have your baptist and islamic, no, we different forces that work here. we need to be able to weigh this, see what's going on, and listen to what they're saying. i mean, the secretary of state do what we hear when they broadcast it on arab radio,
7:12 pm
television, and in the newspapers, we pay attention to what they're saying. is it going in to our policy? it's kind of pushed off. we're still dealing with real politicking as you would korea and other places in the world, but the other factors here not being . >> an interesting to me is that, again, today's "times" reporting the interview with the egyptian president, he said you have to accept the our societal rules. i have no objection to accepting egyptian societal rules, no matter how many i disagree with, as long as they apply to egyptian. when they impose them on other people or seek to impose them on other people. for example, blasphemy, we don't
7:13 pm
recognize blasphemy. >> we don't . >> still, i mean, in the united states freedom of speech. there is no criminal charge of blasphemy. but in arab countries, they kill people. and then they're going to charge a christian indian woman, hindu because she's a sweeper and found she -- qua rans that were burned. they're holding her responsible. in other cubs, i think it was in pakistan, they -- a couple that was charged with adult try. they buried them to their heads and stoned them to death. and they have a rule that you may not make a caricature or fun of mohammed, if you do, we'll
7:14 pm
kill you they say. and the danish cartoonist is still protected by danish police, and the danish government suffered enormously in terms of trade because he had cartoons. and "the new york times" wouldn't even print the cartoons. i understand that i'm not going to blame why should they print them? >> although it's certainly worth of public notice, but they would endanger their reporters and they wouldn't print them. other papers did. in france, the paper just engages and said we respect the muslim religion for them, but it's not for us. and yet, the egyptian president, as i read the interview, expects us to end our first amendment liberties. >> if i may? we, americans, cannot accept
7:15 pm
that they had their culture and we have ours. we stand for universal rights. we stand for the democracy, the right of the individual freedom of expression. those are our values. those are universal values. i don't think we should back off those for one moment. when we say we support israel, those are values as well as ours and those that are -- have a different set of beliefs and whether the beliefs or they're just imposed upon them by corrupt political and religious leadership, i can't say. >> iran. well, before we get to that. i want to end up that. i want to talk about the 1980s presidential election. you were involve with that one top there may be a parallel. it was in your program that we would discuss it.
7:16 pm
historically in american presidential elections 60% of jews vote for the democratic party, and roughly 40% vote for the republicans, and that has been consistent since fdr. 1980 was different ronald reagan was even with president carter. they each got 40% and congressman anderson, i think got 20%. and that had been, you know, those numbers were historic that and it may or may not have influenced the race. it did have a post camp deathth toes and specifically it had to do with yet another u.n. resolution in which the u.n. passed a resolution that essentially equated jerusalem as being occupied and the occupation of that of jerusalem that issue and carter perhaps not strongly preventing that in
7:17 pm
the way that president obama . >> i don't -- [inaudible] he directed the u.n. delegate to vote for him. >> how do i know that? because he called me up. i was coming back from china and i was on the plane and the captain of the plane comes over and said, the president would like you to call him before you talk to the press when you land. so i said okay. so when we land, -- [laughter] when we land, i -- he called up this number, and the president took the call, and first little chitchat. how was your trip. okay. have you heard about my problem? so i said, yeah, i have, mr. president. he said, i need your help. and it was his position at that time he said to me, i just know it was in that resolution. he lied. how do i know he lied? because our delegate mchenry,
7:18 pm
donald mchenry publicly said he read the resolution to jimmy carter, and jimmy carter instructed him to vote for it. so that's how i know this. >> so there have been at least this one ab rate presidential election in which jews voted in a divergent way, do either of you think we might see that kind of a dip for 2012 or will president obama still maintain the exact same hold he has on jewish americans as a democratic leader? >> i suspect that support is eroding. new yorkers are very important state, tough to say what will happen here. but i think the president wins florida -- loses florida, and loses the jewish support at the
7:19 pm
level he needs to . >> mayor, is this a possible revisiting of 1980? >> i believe that president obama as candidate got the highest number of jews 87%, which was a second highest group. first being 95% of all blacks. and the reason -- it's not hard you don't have to be a jen yous to understand why. people, not only jews, others as well, were so excited that we would for the first time have an african-american candidate president in the white house. i mean, a sense of great pride. i think the pride or a sense of feeling isn't it something that we can say based on our history and how it wipes out in part not for our remembering but in terms what we did, that we now have
7:20 pm
come to the point where a black man or black woman or any other group could achieve that . >> and so i think that he will not get 78%, but i believe that the president is going win and be re-elected. i hope that the jewish community is part of that as opposed to being decried as having tried to stop him. >> let me talk about iran, we'll finish up with iran and take questions from the audience. we'll take another break. so there is a hall blank blng in respect to moral failure of nations that failed to act as well as moral i thought one of the lessons of the when a man man says that
7:21 pm
he's about to kill everybody or kill a certain group of people, you take him seriously. we're supposed to listen to people. the point that congressman just said, when you hear things being broadcast in arabic nations, do we listen and internalize? go, well, that's what they said. or do you treat it as this is a price you pay to live in a world of global diplomacy. president ahmadinejad said his intent is to wipe israel off the map. i don't know our residence scholar use words like that. there was no israel but i think i think hitler . >> but he never votes the -- he never said the final solution of the jewish election. >> if there's a war, we'll hold the jews responsible. >> i remember that speech. >> okay. >> and there will be an elimination. >> okay. so, you know, i think prime
7:22 pm
minister netanyahu point quakedded hitler with ahmadinejad. i think some people in israel were critical of that. >> why? >> i'm just saying. he's that he's not the highest level of murderousness. >> i don't know how you distinguish between killing all jews and killing all jews within your authority as hitler wanted to do and almost . >> so here if we have learned 70 years later some lessons of the holocaust why isn't the united states taking ahmadinejad more seriously? >> i tried to look to it early we are, u i don't know if i got it. i was shocked with "the new york times" former editor of the "new york times" bill keller had an
7:23 pm
article in which he said, why shouldn't iran have the nuclear bomb? and then we'll do what we did with russia mutually assure destruction and president obama had said no, earlier we don't accept containment. we don't accept they should ever get to bomb and we will contain them. not at all. we will not let them get the bomb. but to have the former editor in chief of the "new york times" propose that, i said to myself, this is munich. this is chamberlain, this is substituting israel for czechoslovakia. give them the bomb, let them destroy. we can contain them. what is containment mean? that think don't kill us here had the united states, i guess. so i -- to me, that was extraordinary.
7:24 pm
just extraordinary. >> now -- i don't happen to believe that israel is going to do it on its own because there is such -- as to whether or not it's possible to do it on your own. and secondly, there's sort of a tip of the hat as it related to that when prime minister gnat yahoo! netanyahu said it'll take six months before they get their bomb, it's after the general election here. i do not believe there will be an israeli intervention on their own. i do believe that the.should say an attack upon israel and saudi arabia by iran will be perceived asen attack upon the united states and we will respond militarily. why they haven't said that, senator, i thought that was the first one to come up with that. not true.
7:25 pm
senator inouye six months before in january of this year made a statement that this is exactly what we should do. he's the chairman of the senate defense appropriations committee. so he knows where we are speaking as it relates to the military ability of the united states. >> congressman, what mayor koch said -- more aggress i have approach to disable any possibility of a nuclear iran? >> no. we are in the prevention policy not containment. last november the open intelligence briefings suggested that september/october, the
7:26 pm
period we're in now, iran would have enough material to make two impulsive, at least-type devices. weapons grade and they were working on that, and in the -- sanctions et. cetera was going to try to slow it down. we know the number of -- they are making and creating and they have accelerating their program. they have not decreased. the sanctions were what sanctions were supposed to do working very well. but their end goal is to see that we stop them from doing what they're doing. they're not. >> you don't think so? >> for that that is their purpose of failing. but what about waiting them out? >> right . >> the idea that the sanctions will vently work? >> well, we're dealing with a
7:27 pm
timeline. >> right. >> if the timeline originally was this time of year, and now the conversations have shifted to a more sophisticated weapon and simply an implosive guys -- device and maybe we're six months away from that, but the device that i mentioned could be put in containership or something and sent to a harbor and do a great deal of damage. we don't want them to get to a point where they can do that. recently prime minister netanyahu suggested you wanted to see the president. the president blew off that meeting, i think why? if he didn't want to hear what the prime minister was going to tell him. i don't know, but let's just think about it. what do you think he wants to tell him? here is the timeline, mr. president. by this decade, they are going to have it. we have to do something now.
7:28 pm
we have to get the inspectors in there to see they don't. we have to force them to take that material out. the president didn't want to have that meeting. he didn't want to hear it. >> what is the mood you're both on the -- congressman, on the foreign relations committee and homeland security, we don't have hearings on this subject, these are colleagues of yours. what is the members of the democratic national committee think we should -- these are people for whom secure is paramount and foreign policy is paramount. >> you would think they have given it more thought than any. >> for many, the topic is shifting nor the strategic than -- tactical, there is a profound pessimism even with our allies occasionally, ambassadors come in and chat with us that this will be resolved in a diplomatic way.
7:29 pm
>> they're pessimistic about that. >> pessimistic. >> everybody thinks we're sliding in to some . >> confrontation, and it's coming soon. and there's talk on the consequences with, i mean, this isn't we can't simply attack and -- about the business. it will set off a whole chain of really unpleasant long-term ? >> it's a fifteen minute amateur video that no one would have ever seen could set off ransacking embarrass says all across one could imagine . >> time out. people have organized this can stockpile insults to islam, there are enough public indications, cartoon, internet access, they can pull it out when they neat it here is the latest insult let's get to the streets. i adopt buy it for a minute that it was a spaint use --
7:30 pm
[applause] demonstration. >> but it is, you know, -- i hate to use the phrase. lsh. >> let me say in support of the point, how come it happened on the anniversary of 9/11? >> fooling no one again except the state department. it does what -- it's frightening implications that this is merely a sneak preview of far more radical . >> they want to kill us. this is where why the through history there has been a effort by the islamist to resurrect the call will fate that would run from spain all the way to indonesia and include and include a billion 400 million muslims that would be under the
7:31 pm
rule of a religious leader, and have a theocracy instead of the secular states that exist. >> it would be a massive iran. >> yeah. >> let's take some questions from the audience. >> oh my gosh, i was shocked to see the hands. i didn't think anyone had anything to say. .. .. whether this administration
7:32 pm
really has been negotiating policy because my feeling is, the view at the time, the administration just ducks, okay? you mention mentioned starting out with egypt and apology for a previous administration starting out this way and now moving onto different -- voicing maybe a few platitudes during the iranian -- against the administration. and giving things to the israelis namely the armaments. >> and your question? >> i'm going to get to the question because one way or another you have basically no policy it seems to me. it's just endless reactiveness. >> so i think essentially the
7:33 pm
question is, right, the question we will start with the congressman -- this woman saying she doesn't think the obama administration actually has a foreign-policy and certainly consistent when it comes to dealing with the middle east. >> well i think there are inconsistencies and lack of policy. we have been getting political slogans and not policy -- >> if you need to leave, please go out the back. it is true to our guest. go ahead. >> our feelings and foreign-policy, whether the plan to address the budget where we are borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, the plan to salvage social security and medicare which we know is sustainable. what is the plan lacks no, we have had enough with hope and change and now we are moving
7:34 pm
forward. >> so we need something more. i think the question is, the answer is -- >> highly political answer. >> the domestic policy also and overhear a question? wait for the mic. here we go. >> my question is, should the jewish population -- the jewish voting population be satisfied with the fact that the christian evangelicals are -- when it comes to israel? i heard pastor hagee on tv saying that jerusalem should indeed be the capitol of israel and i'm thinking gee this guy is really great and then he said and with the resurrection of our lord and savior, he will be the ruler of jerusalem. >> so you heard this, right?
7:35 pm
this woman said there is a mixed bag with the evangelical support >> the jewish are afraid of evangelicals, like you are. all right, but let me -- let me tell you how to handle it. i think the evangelicals are terrific and very supportive of israel and we should be encouraged. this fear that is often expressed of the subsixteen, the evangelicals believe that before christ can come again, that the jewish have to accept him or they will die and that is the general position. my image to that is this. i say to someone who raises it, it if there is a report that the
7:36 pm
messiah is here, seek him out. and ask him if he is jewish because in jewish biblically of the line of david and if he says that he is, then say is this your first visit or your second visit? [laughter] now if he says it's his first visit, then the evangelicals will convert to judaism. if he says that it's his second visit, then we should -- [inaudible] [applause] >> you are always summoned up perfectly. >> by the way you have any evangelicals not necessarily in your district? any evangelical support financially that came from
7:37 pm
another part of the country? >> as it turns out we get no support financially either from the republican party but sadly we have, and it's more pronounced in the islamic world, this episcopol a g., the end of days and a lot of people think this is coming soon and they can help it along. this is some very bad reasoning and what is coming out of iran is far more frightening than anything coming out of alabama, believe me. >> okay, i feel like -- let's go back up there. go back to one of those gentlemen up there. there you go. good choice. nice sure. >> this question, this question is for mayor koch. i heard you when you supported bush, you said i don't agree
7:38 pm
with him them on this foreign-policy. >> no, what i don't agree with him is his position in support of opposing terrorism and -- who thinks terrorism is a form of criminality. >> yeah, you also said you don't agree with him on most of the issues that you did as far as israel is concerned you felt that you supported israel and -- >> you are not recalling correctly although i happen to believe in the support for israel. >> is supported israel and then when obama ran he said that you were supporting obama because of the fact that you heard that he would be good for israel. >> no, that's not what i said at all. >> what is the question again? >> do you said now that was one of the biggest mistakes you have ever made.
7:39 pm
i heard you say that. >> oh, please. what is your question is? >> that question is are you now supporting obama? >> yes, i am supporting obama. >> what the is the reason why you were supporting him? >> you want to give the reason? >> i did already but i will say very briefly. i believe there are a whole lot of issues to be considered and on domestic issues and i won't go through it again, you can't compare the democrats and the republicans. the democrats are so far better on medicare and medicaid and taxing of the wealthy etc.. and, with respect to the position on israel i hope to move them to mind. >> the gentleman over here and i will come back. do you know what? i feel like it wasn't clear the first time.
7:40 pm
questions, not speeches. we don't need a recitation of what people have said in the past. questions, get to the questions. >> you are had mentioned that the fact that ehud barak said that the united states is assisting israel with all their military cooperation that president obama is good for the state of israel. is it possible that there has been some pressure that was applied to the israeli government to barak in particular and also is it also possible that israel is being placed in a particular position where they have to say some positive statements for the obama administration because they have to hedge their possibility that he may be reelected? >> this gentleman there. you will answer it anyway but just so you know, the question is when ehud barak said that the
7:41 pm
united states under obama's administration has been at least with respect to military come expenditures and cooperation, has never been -- intelligence sharing and intelligence information has been terrific. the gentleman wonders speculating if there has there's been pressure in israel for there to be a positive statement? >> i happen to believe that ehud barak is an honorable man and wouldn't say that if i didn't believe it. i believe it because it's true. >> congressman? >> i think the level of military support of about 3 billion has been fairly consistent for quite a number of years now and the intelligence services have indeed worked very well together win mr. barak issued the statement that was probably before the joined israeli-american exercise was
7:42 pm
canceled in the gulf, which was too shocking surprise to the israelis and a detriment to our joint efforts so i will take what was said there and factor them into that into it because that was before. >> how about the gentleman in the middle? >> the first two were laid. [laughter] you will be next. >> what are my questions again? >> my question is, if i could get a response. i would like to hear a response to the statement this morning by hank schein koff and what you think of that and that is that he said even the location of the jewish vote and the number that he didn't think it was going to be at all significant in this presidential election. because of the location and --
7:43 pm
likely to go. >> i am never heard it pronounced before. >> he worked on your campaign so one of the leading pollsters has just recently indicated that he didn't see that the jewish vote would make much of a difference in this election. >> go ahead. >> largest concentrations of the jewish voter in california and new york. >> i am not ready to write it off yet. [laughter] >> that is the first time i have heard you say something -- [laughter] >> to prove we are gender-neutral, that woman. >> can i just say something? you better have a really good
7:44 pm
question. a hall of fame question. >> a nice belated question. >> she intimidated me. she scared the hell out of me. a little closer. >> one of our topics as the holocaust so we get into too much about votes and politics in the u.s.. you touched upon that when you mentioned unit. there was ample evidence in europe and america of israel's intentions before the first concentration camp was built. what is it that american jews do not understand about the rampant propaganda over the middle east, muslim schools among the clerics, among their governments, that they want to get rid of the jews as they did
7:45 pm
before from their territory, from what they consider their caliphate and if we have no answer then what can we do about it? >> i'm going to start with the mayor on that. i don't know if you're at all of it that you touched on this early on. you said you know younger jewish americans, they don't seem to get the concept. she wants to go back to ask what is it about we are hearing, the noise and chatter from the arab muslim world specifically among younger jewish americans or younger americans period that they are not just ignoring it but perhaps their unfamiliarity with the history of what happened. >> young jews today don't know the history of the shoah and it's really quite incredible. but you should understand, the goals of islam must as a
7:46 pm
historical event, the destruction of western civilization and the fourth conversion -- forced conversion of populations all over the world to islam, the sole exceptions would be christianitd jews if they accepted the premise the of islam over their own religions. so this is a fight that has gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years and will not be over for many years to come. my fear is you know, we lead the good life and they hate us. by? because we have an extraordinary civilization and we want to live. we don't want to die. they believe that if they die,
7:47 pm
killing an infidel they are enlisted to have been and have the services of 72 virgins. i did not make that up. when you look at some of not the koran itself but there are other books on islam quoted by the mufti of jerusalem who was upset because he was criticized for using it, mohammad said find that tree. there is a behind that tree. that is his language, not my language, and nobody cared. you don't take him seriously. why not take them seriously? they didn't take -- seriously. they thought it was a moment in
7:48 pm
time that would pass and it didn't. >> i have a promise and this woman promised she would have an incredible question. >> this is 36 people asked me this question and i'm asking you this question mayor koch. my husband and i -- we spent the summer in israel because we were lucky enough to have a 19-year-old grandchildren grandchildren -- >> the question? >> the question they gave me and they all gave it to me, was isn't obama's record, how can you put him into orbit for a second year where then he can do anything? i have to say this. and they said to me -- this be i heard your question. >> why is mayor koch supporting
7:49 pm
obama? >> the question is the factor as it relates to many many, massachusetts majority of believe of jews making a decision which is when the election is over and president obama can no longer run again, will his support of israel, prior to his election be kept as a commitment or will he spurn the jews? that is really the heart of it and there is only one answer for people like me. i believe he is an honorable man. if i believe -- though you may not. i believe he is an honorable man and if he makes the commitment, i believe he will keep it. it's as simple as that. >> lets let's take one more question. let's take a much younger person. it will be the last question and
7:50 pm
we will take it by the congressman there. >> approximately an hour ago the "associated press" released a story that the senior ranking general and bahraini and national guard stated that in any situation if israel would attack iran, they would see that as an attack coming from the united states support and all military bases would be open to retaliation by the iranian government. do you believe that the obama administration and his policies aren't taking an intimidating enough stand? obviously they are not scared of us. >> this is the mirror image of your point. your point was president obama should say an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. this young man says a narco-the -- reported that one of the generals in the republican army of the air
7:51 pm
training and just said that any israeli attack against iran's will be interpreted as an attack by america and their military -- american military bases will then be vulnerable to retaliation. >> it doesn't shock me. the iranians, if they were -- that would not stop them from trying to kill and destroy every american. at this moment, they have the means in all probability to deliver a missile, certainty, not all probability, certainly to destroy israel and maybe two or three nuclear bombs could destroy the whole place. they don't have that capability with respect to the united states but once they have it, i have no question but they would use it. >> if israel attacks, believe
7:52 pm
the iranians will attack us. we saw 21 countries in riot and revolt and we will see something like that. we will see a cause of action here. we have a hezbollah network in south america with a the colony of over 30,000 people in an area of brazil, argentina and paraguay. we have operatives working, 450 in venezuela. we have a training ground now in bolivia, efforts in ecuador etc.. if there is an attack, we had better be prepared. this will be worldwide. to that gentleman right there, yes, right there. a question and into the mic. >> mr. mayor, when he said you said that president obama should
7:53 pm
say an attack by israel -- >> israel and the saudi arabians. >> it would be an attack on america and america would respond. is it already not too late? should not be attack be on iran before they develop a capability for attack on israel? >> it's very simple. this is not a gotcha situation. the fact is that the president has already said that we will not permit iran to get a nuclear bomb. he has said that. hold its. what i am saying is, that is what he has said. in those very words, that is what he has said. the united states will decide for itself when it's appropriate to stop them from getting the
7:54 pm
bomb. israel has a different point of view. the united states has a different point of view but what i have said is totally different than now. and it's just as important. >> okay, now generally the last question. i'm going to have to give it to both of you. to more. these two women. >> one thing is true, people come to this conference are motivated. some of that was created by our guest. >> congressman turner, what is congress doing? i am actually petrified that president obama will be reelected. now, what can congress do to reign in some of the things that he has done or is the executive
7:55 pm
power -- >> like what? >> okay, groveling in cairo is number one, groveling. knocked away he said he was apologetic. so thane. the truth is, the muslims understand -- they do do not understand weakness and they take offense to weakness and sending a birthday card to ahmadinejad is the most ridiculous thing in the world but that's not it. i want to know what congress can possibly do or what does congress do? see what is the worst nightmare? >> appropriation arises out of the house. first of all we have the -- which i expect will happen and we have over 40 goals, many of them limiting aid to egypt, to
7:56 pm
other arab countries and until they do certain things we will respond in a certain way. the senate's is sitting on these right now. we can, even in the next house, next year, can limit appropriations but that is limited. the senate's still has approval on treaties and the president has executive power. but, if you look at past history, the poles, the demographics, the president should lose 54, and the republicans will take control of the senate and the republic will be saved. thank you very much. >> all right, last question for this woman.
7:57 pm
a question? >> yes, just a question. in a couple of days it will be yom kippur and wednesday ahmadinejad will take the platform at the united nations general assembly and my question is, what recourse, what action can we be taking similar to canada's shutting their embassy, what can the united states do with regard to the international court of justice clear? there is talk right now about recognizing the fact that he is on a genocidal path. his goals are genocidal and that is against the member nation of the united nations. how can we as america do something to ensure that iran is thrown out of the united nations and of course he can't be given platforms like this. he is now the secretary to the m.a. and for the next three years. >> i understand your position,
7:58 pm
how can the united states get iran thrown out? >> realize that iran is held a meeting where 40 countries went went -- i thought it was 40 but even more important, 120 and you're suggesting that somehow the president should organize the assembly so that it will throw iran out? listen, you will forgive me. it's ridiculous. we pay dues but we don't decide how countries will vote. and thank god that none of the votes of the assembly are mandatory in terms of being carried out. that has to be done through the security council, where we have a veto. but to suggest that we go down the path of trying to throw iran out of the assembly, we would be
7:59 pm
spinning our wheels. >> congressman? >> to even debate the efficacy of the u.n. is a waste of time since they are a colossal failure. [applause] this is the league of nations's. we have some successes in humanitarian aid and some peacekeeping. beyond that, this is an enormous propaganda machine against us and against western civilization and we ought to recognize it as such. >> with that final word, we want to thank the former mayor koch and congressman robert turner. always a pleasure. [applause] thank you all. you are very kind. thank you. >> ipod c-span, every

tv
U.S. Senate
CSPAN September 26, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Israel 78, United States 26, Us 20, Iran 15, Romney 14, Obama 12, Virginia 11, U.n. 8, Florida 8, Colorado 7, Koch 6, Jerusalem 6, Egypt 6, George W. Bush 5, Islam 5, Nevada 5, Obama Administration 4, Libya 4, U.s. 4, Paul Ryan 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 9/26/2012
Views
53